2009 IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference (APSCC) 2009
DOI: 10.1109/apscc.2009.5394140
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of IEEE 802.11p and MS-Aloha in Vanet scenarios

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…They measured the distributions of the channel access delay, of the distance within nodes which are sending at the same time and of the number of consecutive packet drops. A similar study was published by Cozzetti et al in [12]. They also compared 802.11p with an own MAC scheme called RRAloha+ and it's improved version MS-Aloha.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…They measured the distributions of the channel access delay, of the distance within nodes which are sending at the same time and of the number of consecutive packet drops. A similar study was published by Cozzetti et al in [12]. They also compared 802.11p with an own MAC scheme called RRAloha+ and it's improved version MS-Aloha.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…In relation to the system throughput, the RR-ALOHA is better than the CSMA/CA scheme when the Contention Window (CW) size of the backoff protocol is fixed to fifteen slots. In [14], the performance of CSMA/CA and MS-Aloha (Mobile Slotted Aloha which is based on RR-Aloha) protocols are compared. Their results reveal that MS-Aloha achieves a packet delivery ratio higher than CSMA/CA when the transmission range is between 0 and 120 meters.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, very few papers, such as [8], focus specifically on VANETs. To the best of our knowledge, most of these studies use simulations to evaluate the performances of these networks and/or assume simplified interference models.…”
Section: B Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%